Deviant Calvinism

Broadening Reformed Theology

Oliver D. Crisp

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN:
  9781451486131
• eBook ISBN:
  9781451487596
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Denominations

Deviant Calvinism seeks to show that the Reformed tradition is much broader and more variegated than is often thought. Crisps work focuses on a cluster of theological issues concerning the scope of salvation and shows that there are important ways in which current theological discussion of these topics can be usefully resourced by attention to theologians of the past.

The scope of atonement, in particular, is once again a hot topic in current evangelical theology. This volume addresses that issue via discussion of eternal justification, whether Calvinists can be free-will libertarians (like Arminian theologians); whether the Reformed should be universalists, and if they are not, why not; whether Reformed theology is consistent with a universal atonement; and whether the hypothetical universalism of some Calvinists is actually as eccentric and strange a doctrine as is sometimes thought. This book contributes to theological retrieval within the Reformed tradition and establishes a wider path to thinking about Calvinism differently.

7

Hypothetical Universalism

It demonstrates also the infinite love of God towards the human race, who willingly sent his own Son to redeem miserable mortals. . . . It must also be observed, that the Apostle does not say we have redemption by the Son of God, but in him. For by Christ the whole world is said to be redeemed, inasmuch as he offered and gave a sufficient ransom for all; but in him the elect and faithful alone have effectual redemption, because they alone are in him.

—Bishop John Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians

Calvinism is often thought to be synonymous with a particular doctrine of double predestination, according to which God eternally ordains the salvation of a small remnant of humanity, and damns the rest, by means of the salvific work of Christ. This is commonly believed to go hand in hand with a particular view of the scope of Christ’s atoning work: that it is accomplished on behalf of, and applied to, the elect, and only them—what is often, and unfortunately, called the doctrine of “limited” atonement. On both counts, this is to identify a broad tradition of Christian theology with one particular doctrine of election and the scope of redemption held by many of its adherents, but by no means all. It would be like conflating Marxism with socialism, or Theravada Buddhism with Buddhism as a whole. Recent historiographical work has begun to show that early Reformed theology tolerated much greater doctrinal breadth than some popular pictures of it would suggest.^[1]

Hypothetical Universalism and the Reformed Symbols

One of the most interesting recent developments in this area has been work done on the doctrine of hypothetical universalism, or what in the older theological literature is sometimes called “Calvinistic universalism.”^[2] As we shall see, there are different versions of this doctrine, but they share in common the claim that the work of Christ is universal in its sufficiency but applied to an elect number less than the total number of fallen humanity; hence hypothetical universalism. This in turn draws on an ancient, catholic distinction found in discussion of the scope of Christ’s atoning work that goes back at least as far as Peter Lombard, with whom it is usually identified. This is the so-called sufficiency–efficiency distinction. We can state it thus: Christ offers himself for all humanity with respect to the sufficiency of his work but for the elect alone with regard to its efficacy, because he brought about salvation only for the predestined.^[3]The distinction is sometimes accused of being too porous to be of much theological use, because it is consistent with both the doctrine of definite atonement (according to which God intends the work of Christ to be only for the elect) and the Arminian doctrine (according to which Christ dies in principle for every individual, and election depends on foreseen faith).^[4] However, it has had a considerable vogue in medieval and post-Reformation theology—perhaps because the terms sufficient and efficient are not given a precise scope. Be that as it may, it is certainly a distinction that has informed historic discussion of hypothetical universalism. In fact, one might argue that hypothetical universalism is simply the extrapolation of one obvious way of understanding this distinction. This is a matter to which we shall return.

Hypothetical universalism is often thought to be heretical, or at least unorthodox, as far as the Reformed tradition goes. This claim is more than a little odd, given that there is arguably a significant strand of hypothetical universalism in Reformed theology from its inception. As Richard Muller has recently pointed out,

Given that there was a significant hypothetical universalist trajectory in the Reformed tradition from its beginnings, it is arguably less than useful to describe its continuance [that is, the continuance of hypothetical universalism in post-Reformation Reformed thought] as a softening of the tradition. More importantly, the presence of various forms of hypothetical universalism as well as various approaches to a more particularistic definition [of the work of Christ] renders it rather problematic to describe the tradition as “on the whole” particularistic and thereby to identify hypothetical universalism as a dissident, subordinate stream of the tradition, rather than as one significant stream (or, perhaps two!) among others, having equal claim to confessional orthodoxy.^[5]

In fact, hypothetical universalism has never been repudiated by a Reformed synod or council. The French theologians of the Academy of Saumur, where one version of the doctrine flourished in the seventeenth century, were never formally condemned for their views on this matter.^[6] The only confessional symbol that does take issue with hypothetical universalism in its Saumurian guise is the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675). But this is a late document, written in large part by the Swiss theologian Johann Heinrich Heidegger, and its influence was short-lived.^[7] It is not a subordinate standard for any Reformed communion, and even in its criticism of the doctrine does not label it heretical. It is not beyond the bounds of confessional orthodoxy in the Reformed tradition. In this way, it is quite different from, say, the Remonstrant doctrines that called for the condemnations of the Synod of Dort. The Three Forms of Unity—the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of the Synod of Dort—as well as the Anglican Articles of Religion, which do have the status of subordinate standards or confessions for many Reformed and Anglican communions, are consistent with hypothetical universalism.^[8]

Of these symbols, the condemnations of Dort have the most pointed things to say about the scope of Christ’s atonement. However, and contrary to some popular presentations on the matter, there is no good reason to think that Dort affirmed a doctrine of atonement that excludes hypothetical universalism. In fact, some of the most prominent delegates at the synod, including the German Reformed Martinius, and several members of the British delegation, including its leader, Bishop John Davenant, were in favor of hypothetical universalism.^[9] This can be seen in the relevant article of the synod, 2.8, “Christ’s Death and Human Redemption through It,” which deals with the scope of the atonement thus:

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that Christ should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death). It was also God’s will that Christ should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.^[10]

Clearly, this article applies the benefits of Christ’s work only to those with faith, whom God has elected. Christ’s work is said to “work itself out in all the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation.” But this is entirely consistent with the claim that the work of Christ is sufficient for the salvation of all humanity in principle, though it is effectual only for the elect who are given faith. As Jonathan Moore points out, “[A]s it stands, what the Canons teach here is that Christ’s effectual redemptive work was ‘only’ for the elect.” He goes on: “This leaves the door open—even if it is only a back door—for any subscriber to hold privately to an ineffectual redemptive work for the non-elect, or, to put it differently, Christ dying for the non-elect sufficiently but not efficiently—precisely what a hypothetical universalist usage of the Lombardian formula entailed.”^[11] In short, the relevant canon of the Synod of Dort does not exclude Reformed theologians persuaded by the hypothetical universalist doctrine. This is precisely why British delegates like Bishop Davenant and Bishop Ward were able to sign on to the articles.

The doctrine of Davenant and a number of other Anglican divines represents a strand of historic hypothetical universalism, which developed in England independently of, and earlier than, the Amyraldian version. Although it informed theological debate in the early-modern period of English theology, it was not censured in synods and was not repudiated by the major post-Reformation symbol of Great Britain after the Articles of Religion, namely, the Westminster Confession.^[12] This is significant, given the influence of the Westminster Confession in subsequent Presbyterianism as a subordinate doctrinal standard. Chapter 8.5, of theConfession, entitled “Of Christ the Mediator,” states,

The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.

But this is commensurate with hypothetical universalism, because one could claim that Christ’s work is sufficient for the world but efficacious for only “those whom the Father has given” to Christ. Section 8 of the same chapter reads,

To all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption, He does certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by His word and Spirit.^[13]

On the face of it, this appears to require a doctrine of definite atonement. However, as Moore points out, the first sentence is still porous enough to admit of a hypothetical universalist reading, even if it is not entirely natural. The claim that “all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption” have salvation “certainly and effectually” applied to them is consistent with the notion that effectual redemption is restricted to the elect. But this in turn is commensurate with hypothetical universalism.^[14]

There are other worries lurking in the Westminster Confession. Two further sections merit some comment. First, there is the third chapter on the divine decrees. A potential problem lies in the claim of chapter 3.6 to the effect that “[n]either are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.” But here, as in other contested passages, the hypothetical universalist can claim that redemption in this context is clearly meant to refer to the effectual calling of God that is reserved only for the elect. Then there is chapter 29.2, “Of the Lord’s Supper,” which speaks of Christ’s “only sacrifice,” being “the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.” However, this holds no terror for the hypothetical universalist either, provided (as before) she glosses this passage as a reference to the effectual work of Christ, not to its intrinsic sufficiency for the whole world. Given that the immediate context is the appropriate reception of the sacramental elements in the Eucharist, this interpretation seems entirely appropriate; for only the elect receive the elements in faith on the basis of the “alone propitiation” of Christ for their sins.

Having said this, there are a number of problems with hypothetical universalism that are less easy to dismiss. Some of these have been the subject of discussion in this recent historical-theological literature. However, there has not been any attempt (as far as I am aware) to offer a constructive account of the doctrine. That is what I shall set forth here. The idea is not to endorse the doctrine but to show that it is a viable theological option for those in the Reformed tradition, which should be taken much more seriously than it is in current systematic theology. We might call this task “theological clarification.” It involves setting forth a doctrine in the best light and attempting to account for objections that have been raised against it, in order to understand and explain its importance as a contribution to Christian theology.^[15]

Two Versions of Hypothetical Universalism

As has already been intimated, there is no single doctrine of hypothetical universalism; there are different species of the same genus.^[16] In the historic seventeenth-century discussion of the subject, the backdrop was the (sometimes) heated debate about the ordering of the divine decrees in Reformed theology, as we...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Table Of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Tradition, Faith, and Doctrine
• Eternal Justification
• Libertarian Calvinism
• Augustinian Universalism
• Universalism and Particularism
• Barthian Universalism?
• Hypothetical Universalism
• The Double-Payment Objection
• Conclusion
• Works Cited and Consulted
• Index of Subjects and Names